If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

And the comments and forums are once again filled with people complaining about RPS writing about women. And people complaining about those complaints. And other people complaining about the whole debate. And me pointing out this.

In seriousness though, I hope that RPS is not outright ignoring the criticism that I and others are making here. I am not telling anybody to stop writing about gender inequality in games. I'm not asking "Durr hurr but wut about teh mens". I can only ask that the writers practice some restraint or focus instead of blindly firing at anything that remotely resembles mistreatment of women. Even when they're not dropping full salvos of heat on companies for these perceived slights, there are regular insinuations (read: assumptions) of nefarious business afoot. And too often it feels like both the writers and some readers just dismiss legitimate criticisms with "Oh no, here comes the MRA brigade, just stop reading."

I didn't care much for their coverage of AC4's lack of playable women, but I understood there to be some valid concerns at the heart of the matter. Sexism is absolutely tangled up in that issue on some level. Where I get lost is when I read pieces like Grayson's on the new R6 game. Or when John Walker has a disproportionate freakout at a Call of Duty commercial. Or when they bite at PAX for having "safe zones" and suspend coverage while attending E3, of all places. It's jumping the gun when a second review of these things reveals that they are more nuanced that they initially seemed or really not bad at all.

He definitely had a point regarding their reasoning for using a woman for the demo. At least discussing it seems reasonable. But I do feel slightly sorry for Ubisoft in that in terms of representation of people other than white males they're actually by far one of the better companies. They've made mistakes, that's absolutely certain, but I think we should be as willing to praise the good as condemn the bad.

I feel dirty for giving the article a click but I just had to see it for myself.

Anyway the Ubisoft developer shouldn't have explained the reason for having a woman as the hostage.
I mean, the reason is good. The hostages should be likeable and provoke a strong emotional response - it ups the stakes for one team and makes the other one feel more like desperate villains.
Right now it's better if as a developer you shut the fuck up. Ubisoft just keeps stumbling from one blunder into another because everything they say regarding gender, race and sexual preferences for Unity, Far Cry and R6 gets twisted and interpreted as "troubling".

Making a realistic and likeable character is "troubling", "disappointing", makes the author "wary". Showing what's probably the most complete and one of the best characters built for this role is the result of "archaic mentalities".

Anyway the Ubisoft developer shouldn't have explained the reason for having a woman as the hostage.
I mean, the reason is good. The hostages should be likeable and provoke a strong emotional response - it ups the stakes for one team and makes the other one feel more like desperate villains.

Strong emotional response? the hostage is little more than a companion cube with a set of pre-recorded screams. It is being thrown around like an object.

And why anyone would need the hostage to be a woman to evoke any kind of response. Should male objects (honest typo there) just be left to their own devices? (half the women in the sample replied "hell yes they deserve it" to this question)

Originally Posted by Velko

The caravan travels, the dogs bark.

The blackbirds sing at dawn, and dusk
(and yeah during the day and at night too, they just seem to like the singing part a lot)

...and beings who would like to pass for real people only remember to sign up to the forums to share their indignation for this and that and asking content to be pulled (seriously? seriously.)

And why anyone would need the hostage to be a woman to evoke any kind of response. Should male objects (honest typo there) just be left to their own devices? (half the women in the sample replied "hell yes they deserve it" to this question)

Well, that's how we've been mentally wired for ages. Furthermore, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong, cynical, or degrading about that. I know that the sight of a woman in distress prompts a visceral reaction from me, distinct from one a male would elicit. It's important we acknowledge that emotional responses to such depictions have their limits and place; not every woman is a victim in need of saving and my reaction is a product of instinct. But is it really so terrible to even acknowledge thus?

I don't think anybody needs the female to be a hostage, but that's what they chose for their ten minutes of gameplay, and so what. Regardless of the decision-making process that went into it, the end result in the trailer is a hostage that happens to be female. Hostages are inherently vulnerable and under threat. Is there anything else in the footage that is cause for alarm? Anything at all? I am genuinely curious.

I could understand how somebody may have a quibble with it. I personally think this is very inoffensive, but I won't tell others how to feel. What I don't appreciate in the article is how the author uses this one arguable point to launch into an assumption that the game itself has "archaic mentalities" behind it; how he completely ignores the other female presented in the video in order to make his point; how he takes an opportunity to link back to the same AC4 controversy article twice (in case you forgot about it). It reads like he really just wanted to express even more disappointment at Ubisoft, and the new R6 game just offered a convenient opening. The hostage tech is practically glossed over.

It really gives off the impression that there was some selective filtering going on. It also tells me that you can find boogeymen anywhere and everywhere when you're actively looking for them. It was the same routine when the Cyberpunk trailer came out and Nathan practically put CDP on trial for the way they depicted a woman. It's unwarranted and reduces the inclination to listen in the future. And it's exactly what I'm talking about when I say I take issue with how and what they write, not what they write about per se.

Slightly confused as to why comments are off on the Age Of Empires Online shutdown article? I can understand on the eSports one, did Nathan just forget to switch the default option back over or is there some huge controversy I'm not aware of?

Slightly confused as to why comments are off on the Age Of Empires Online shutdown article? I can understand on the eSports one, did Nathan just forget to switch the default option back over or is there some huge controversy I'm not aware of?

I came here to ask the exact same question. A bit baffling as I cannot make out any inflammatory potential in these topics.

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."

"Quantacat's name is still recognised even if he watches on with detached eyes like Peter Molyneux over a cube in 3D space, staring at it with tears in his eyes, softly whispering... Someday they'll get it."